Loaded "I do."

If Proposition 8 on the California General Election ballot passes, the California Constitution will be amended to its former state, eliminating the right to same-sex marriages. Barack Obama has taken a stance against Prop 8, encouraging his supporters to vote "no" on November 4.

While this Democratic support appears promising, Patrick Healey demonstrates how Obama supporters could in fact cause the proposition to pass. His argument lies in the "socially conservative blacks and Hispanics [who support Obama...] but oppose same-sex marriage." Simply, greater Obama-voter turnout is unlikely to translate favorably for the opponents of Prop 8, who had been otherwise eager for Obama’s endorsement.

The Obama-voters of California are likely confused by his position, they may even feel like he is contradicting himself. After all, Obama IS opposed to same-sex marriage, but he stands against an amendment that would ban such marriages? It is easy to miss, but Healey clarifies “Mr. Obama opposes amending state constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual institution, describing such proposals as discriminatory.” Drawing on his own parents’ biracial marriage, which was illegal in many southern states, he speaks to the same-sex marriage debate in legal terms.

What can be said for Obama’s legal defense, when he has cited religion as the root of his opposition? Unlike McCain, who draws on cultural norms to explain his own opposition, Obama wavers in conviction, is it church or state? He expresses his distress in The Audacity of Hope when he says “no matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”

Truth behold, his judgment is loaded; it may in fact be more offensive to use God as his witness.

URGENT! Please read.

We are only days away from the upcoming election. It is imperative for all Americans to understand what is at stake on Tuesday, November 4. To those who caution me and others against being single-issue voters, I would like to say this: You are right, there are many issues at stake, and we should educate ourselves on these issues as much as possible when we choose a candidate. There are times, however, when certain issues become of primary concern because of the emergence of grave threats to the dignity of the human life. Obama has in effect made this a single-issue election because of his extreme pro-choice stance. Human life in its most innocent and vulnerable stage is greatly endangered. If Obama were moderate, it might be possible for a Catholic, or a pro-life person of any religion, to rationalize a vote for Obama. In the document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the U.S. Catholic bishops have stated, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference and inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidates’ unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (paragraphs 34 and 35). Given Obama’s stance on abortion, it is difficult to find a “grave moral reason” to support him. What “grave moral reason” can a Catholic voter in good conscience present in support of Obama? What issue “trumps” the issue of the most basic human right, the right to be born? Is it the economy? To be honest, while both candidates have different viewpoints, I think that either one could come up with some ways to pull us out of this economic crisis. Is it the war in Iraq? True, McCain has committed to keeping troops there for an undetermined length of time, but Obama, while pulling out sooner, still plans to keep “residual forces” in Iraq. In addition, Obama has expressed support on multiple occasions for the risky move of crossing the Pakistan border in search of Afghani insurgents, with or without the authorization of the Pakistani government. Is healthcare the concern? Let’s not put the cart before the horse. How about allowing people to be born in the first place? I would say that the fact that millions of Americans are being murdered in their mother’s womb is a pretty serious health crisis. Let us not fail to acknowledge that there is a genocide taking place right here in the U.S., every day, in the wombs of women who are deceived into thinking that killing their children will lead to liberation.

Please humor me for a moment and imagine a hypothetical election. It is 2008, and we can choose between 2 candidates whom for now we will call “A” and “B.” Let’s suppose that both candidates have relatively the same stance on abortion, yet they diverge on other issues and tend to follow their respective party’s typical stances. Now say that one of the candidates (candidate “B”) is openly racist and has even supported legislation to protect the rights of the KKK over the years (I choose racism as an issue because it is mentioned by the U.S. Catholic bishops along with abortion as an “intrinsic evil” in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship). If elected, candidate “B” plans to sign off on laws that will virtually wipe away all the gains the Civil Rights Movement has made over the past few decades and use taxpayer’s dollars to support KKK activities. Candidate “A,” on the other hand, has openly condemned racism and would overturn any discriminatory legislation that still exists. Consider now that you are preparing to vote, and you have decided that “B’s” racist stance compels you to reject him/her and vote for “A.” Would you expect to be criticized for focusing only on the racism issue? It would be very strange if someone were to say to you, “Listen, you can’t just look at one issue. Yeah, ‘B’s’ racist, but you have to look at the big picture. Besides, what difference is “A” really going to make?” Such a person may even argue that despite “B’s” history of endorsement of racist legislation, his or her economic policies would lead to more integration and greater financial stability for families of all races. This would in turn result in an increase in understanding between races and a decrease in tensions caused by economic strain that often bring out the worst in us. Would these argument justify voting for a racist candidate? I think not. Now just replace “A” with McCain, “B” with “Obama,” “racism” with “abortion,” and “KKK” with “Planned Parenthood.” Does this give you a different perspective on this year’s election?

This past week in our Faith and Politics class, we examined several very powerful arguments expressed in Robert George’s Public Discourse article “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and George Weigel’s op-ed Newsweek piece “Pro-Life Catholics for Obama.” Both men have an impressive history of experience in matters of faith, politics, and ethics. Both Weigel and George write about Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” his unwavering support of Roe v. Wade, and his commitment to FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act. Robert George quotes Obama as saying, “the first thing I would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. ” Weigel does a good job of summing up this act as well as describing significant policies that Obama opposes, so I would like to quote Weigel here:

“According to his own Web site, Obama supports the federal Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA], which would eliminate all state and federal regulation of abortion (such as informed consent and parental notification in the case of minors seeking an abortion); these regulations have demonstrably reduced the absolute number of abortions in the jurisdictions in which they are in effect. FOCA would also eliminate, by federal statute, state laws providing "conscience clause" protection for pro-life doctors who decline to provide abortions. Obama (along with the Democratic Party platform) supports federal funding for abortion, opposes the Hyde amendment (which restricts the use of taxpayer monies for abortion) and has pledged to repeal the "Mexico City policy" (initiated by Ronald Reagan and reinstated by George W. Bush, which bans federal foreign-aid funding for organizations that perform and promote abortion as a means of family planning). According to the pro-choice Web site RHRealityCheck.org, Obama also opposes continued federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers.” Thus, FOCA really is not about choice at all. It is about eliminating the freedom of pro-life taxpayers and healthcare professionals to choose not to cooperate with murder. It is about continuing to deny helpless babies their right to be born.

In response to those who argue that Obama’s policies on other issues would lead to a decrease in abortion by improving socioeconomic status, Weigel offers the following statistics: “Sweden, with a much thicker social safety net than the United States, has precisely the same rate (25 percent) of abortions per pregnancy as America,” and “according to a survey conducted by the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, a mere 23 percent of abortions in the United States are performed primarily because of alleged financial need.”

If Obama’s endorsement of FOCA is not enough to cause concern, Robert George describes the various legislative acts supported by Obama that would allow for the creation and destruction of human embryos for stem cell research. Besides the fact that this is extremely unethical, it is completely unnecessary due to the fact that there are a number of successful alternative ways to acquire non-embryonic stem cells. It is incomprehensible why Obama would support such acts. George also notes that Obama has shown a record of opposition to pro-life bills, even those proposed by his own Democratic Party.

George goes on to remind us that we have 5 to 6 Supreme Court justices who are likely to retire within the next four to eight years. While we will have to deal with a President for 8 years at the most, we will have to contend with the Supreme Court justices he appoints until they have reached an age or a health condition at which they are no longer able to effectively perform their duties. The impact of an appointment of a Supreme Court justice will extend far beyond the termination of a presidency. George points out that Obama has “made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama.” McCain, on the other hand, has stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He would likely appoint judges who feel the same way.

There are some who argue that simply overturning Roe v. Wade would make little difference in decreasing the number of abortions. I would like to echo George’s argument, however, and affirm that turning the issue over to the states would allow for greater dialogue on the issue and more pro-life legislative gains than a national blanket-statement from federal Supreme Court justices legislating from the bench. Furthermore, McCain recognizes that overturning Roe v. Wade and handing the issue to the states is not the only thing that must be done. He explicitly states on his website (under the section “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life”) that a reversal of Roe v. Wade must be accompanied by continued support of “faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to mothers in need” as well as greater encouragement of adoption.

To see a video confirming what has been presented in this blog, please visit this link: http://americaschoicenow.com/

On November 4th, 2008, may we choose life, and may we continue to embrace God’s indescribable gift of life every day of our lives.

I leave you with this verse: “I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live” Deuteronomy 30:19

Cuts to Contraceptive Aid in Africa

The State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development has allegedly ordered six African countries (Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe) to stop giving U.S.-donated contraceptives to the British-based Marie Stopes International (MSI) family planning organization. MSI works with the U.N. Population Fund in China, which President Bush opposes on the belief that it supports China's family-planning program. It seems to further his distaste for the Population Fund he is severing ties with their affiliate. In an official statement the MSI organization responded: "Only the Bush administration could find logic in the idea that they can somehow reduce abortion and promote choice for women in China by causing more abortion and gutting choice for women in Africa," it said. "This senseless decision is likely to have only one clear consequence: the death of African women and girls."

Further estimations by the organization suggest the loss of U.S. support will increase unwanted pregnancies to 157,000 per year, leading to 62,000 additional abortions and 660 women dying in childbirth. Kent Hill, an official of the U.S. aid agency, dispels these claims saying that the same supplies will be available, they are just being redirected through other aid agencies. With this new course, large cities will still benefit. The same cannot be said for rural areas where Marie Stopes clinics are the only resource for family planning.

Op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristoff highlights the paradox of the “pro-life” administration in their latest decision on reproductive health, calling John McCain into the ring -- citing his support of the de-funding on the U.N. Population Fund. He also recounts an interview that asked McCain “whether American aid should finance contraceptives to fight AIDS in Africa, [to which] he initially said, ‘I haven’t thought about it,’ and later added, ‘You’ve stumped me.’” Barack Obama is said to support U.N.-led family-planning initiatives.

While the original intentions are good -- refusing to support forced abortion or sterilization in China -- they should not come at the expense of another population. To be clear this is a decision of the Bush administration, however; John McCain’s support does hurt his defender-of-the unborn status greatly. Now just to leave you with an entirely separate consideration, something else to mull over: what a decision like this can do to affect our international relations with the African nations. Is it in the American best interest to prioritize issues in China over Africa?

A Change of Pace

As we continue to research, ponder, debate, contemplate, and argue about the issues and candidates of this year's presidential campaign, let us pause and take a step back, just like our two presidential candidates did last night, to look at the big picture. Both nominees attended and spoke at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York, an event that honors the Catholic politician and reformer who served four terms as governor of NY and ran as the Democratic candidate for president in 1928. Smith truly showed concern for "the least of these," speaking out especially for the needs of "urban residents." According to the foundation's website, "Founded by his eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman in 1946, to honor the memory of Alfred Emanuel Smith, New York's renowned Governor and patron of the 'Little People,' the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation supports and aids the poor, sick, and underprivileged of the Archdiocese of New York, regardless of race, creed, or color." Over the years, the dinner has traditionally featured very prominent politicians and other noteworthy figures as keynote speakers. The foundation's website lists an impressive array of speakers throughout the years, from Dwight D. Eisenhowr to Tony Blair. This was not the first time that presidential candidates appeared at the event, as they are often invited in election years. To name a few, Kennedy and Nixon spoke in 1960, and Bush and Gore appeared in 2000.

The life and work of Al Smith were marked by a deep commitment to the principles of Catholic social teaching, which transcend all parties (as is evident in the USCCB's recent statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship"). For this reason, I think it is especially fitting that an organization of the Catholic Church would be responsible for bringing the two candidates together in this good-natured setting. McCain and Obama sat on either side of his eminence Cardinal Edward Egan. What a striking visual! What a convergence of faith and politics! Here was a prominent Catholic cardinal, deeply committed to his vocation and having received numerous responsibilities and honors from Rome, dining and laughing between the two opposing candidates for the U.S. Presidential election. This demonstrates that the Church, in being faithful to her mission to be the "light of the world" and the "salt of the earth" (Matthew 5) should indeed involve herself in political life. This is not to say that the Church must endorse a candidate, but instead works together with "people of good will" to seek the common good, as Catholic social teaching espouses.

As Obama announced, "I think it is a tribute to American democracy that with two weeks left to go in the hard-fought election the two of us could come together and sit down at the same dinner table without preconditions." The timing of the event was remarkable, taking place just the day after the third presidential debate. What a dramatic switch, from a heated presidential debate to an evening of celebration and laughter in honor of a wonderful Catholic politician! Let me not fail to mention the roasts of the evening! This tradition of the roasts at the memorial dinners attests to the fact that the Church does indeed have a sense of humor. McCain's jabs at himself included references to "Joe the Plumber," his seven houses, and several other idiosyncrasies and actions for which he has been criticized. The jokes McCain directed at Obama included mentions of Obama's tax plan, the "messiah" status he has received, and the tension between Obama and Hillary. Indeed, McCain did not hesitate to include in the roast Hillary, Bill, Biden, and several others. Obama brought these individuals and others up in his roast, as well. Some of Obama's jests at himself referenced his own alleged celebrity status (he clarified that he was not born in a manger but on the planet Krypton), his middle name, and his associations with questionable characters. He poked fun at McCain for the economy and his seven houses, among other things. Towards the end of the roasts, each candidate expressed his praise and respect for his opponent as well for as the work of the Archdiocese of New York, especially the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation.

McCain stated, "I can't wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well. Whatever the outcome the next month, Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country and I congratulate him. In his own day Governor Al Smith achieved great things as well and traveled a harder path than . . . any presidential candidate before or since. At the Al Smith Foundation and at the archdiocese you are carrying on the spirit and work of this good man with your service to the poor, your comfort of the sick and needy, your belief in the dignity of life, especially your gallant defense of the rights of the unborn. I'm proud to count myself as your friend and ally."


After paying tribute to Tim Russert, Obama offered his own closing words of inspiration, "The fact that each October in the closing weeks of a hard-fought campaign people of all political persuasions can come to this dinner and share a meal in honor of the work of this foundation underscores the reality that no matter what differences or divisions or arguments we are having right now, we ultimately belong to something much bigger and more lasting than a political party. We belong to a community. We share a country. We are all children of God. And in this country there are millions of fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters, who need us very much, especially now . . . Scripture says God creates us for works of service. We are blessed to have so many organizations like this one and the Catholic diocese that perform these acts of God every day, but each of us also has that responsibility. Each of us has that obligation, especially now. So no matter who we are or what we do, what I believe is each of us in this room asks for and hopes for and prays for enough strength and wisdom to do good and to seek justice and play our small
part in building a more hopeful and compassionate world for the generations that will follow. Simply put, [Al]helped people, and that's a distinction we can all aspire to . . . and I have no doubt that if we come together at this moment of crisis with this goal in mind, . . . America will meet this challenge and weather this storm and, in the words of Al Smith, 'walk once more in eternal sunshine' " (On a side note, is it just me or did I see Douglas Kmiec in the audience? I'm not sure, but one man there looked a whole lot like the author's picture on the back of Can a Catholic Support Him?).

Of course, one can ponder whether or not the compliments were truly sincere and the jabs were good natured. I would like to think, however, (and maybe I am being naive) that the exchange last night was indeed amicable and that the two candidates were genuinely enjoying the event. I would suppose that today, however, both candidates have reassumed their stances and have quickly gotten back to work campaigning (McCain jumped right back into "campaign mode" on Letterman last night/this morning, animatedly explaining his policies and lamenting that Obama had not exactly "repudiated" Congressman Lewis for linking McCain and Palin to Eugene Bull Connor). Nevertheless, I found those few moments of last night's roast to be wonderfully refreshing. Not only did both candidates provide us with quite a bit of comic relief, but we were able to witness the Catholic Church's commitment to the common good shining forth. In providing opportunities like this, the Church does not compromise her mission, but indeed provides opportunities for Gospel values to more deeply permeate our world. I think that such efforts are a means of evangelization. The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner enabled people from many different backgrounds to come together in celebration of a man whose life of compassionate service was inspired by his faith in Jesus Christ.

"To serve Allah and my country"

In his op-ed article, The Push to ‘Otherize’ Obama, Nicholas Kristof delivers the disheartening results of a Pew Research Center survey of which 13% of voters identified Obama as Muslim, while another 16% remained unconvinced that he was Christian. Even more alarming, these percentages have risen since June! Theories of Obama as the Anti-Christ do not seem to help; the online Red State Shop sells products tarnishing an “O” with horns. While the most conservative Christians are not all too fond of McCain, they would rather vote for him than Satan. Never mind that Obama is more active in church than his opponent.

Kristof will suggest that “religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.” He goes on to support his claim: “In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.” To justify, excuse, or otherwise mask racism, certain voters have taken a religious discrepancy (largely based on his middle name, Hussein, and his childhood in Islamic Indonesia) and run with it, well beyond its boundaries. It is to say Obama is “other,” or specifically un-American.

I could not agree more with Mr. Kristof, my only critique on his claim: he is not harsh enough! These voters are cowards. Although he does a great job of reprimanding his fellow journalists who choose to promulgate falsehoods at the disservice of politics. In reading his article I was reminded of another, (I was pleased to see Rachel used this piece on the 22^nd) in which it is written: “One parishioner ruled out voting for Mr. Obama explicitly because he is black. ‘Are they going to make it the Black House?’” It is possible had I not read this article, I would have had a harder time buying Kristof’s argument. I wish I did not know of such ignorance.

Having studied abroad in South Africa last semester I was alarmed, terrified and saddened to witness the “xenophobic” attacks directed on foreigners – particularly refugees or immigrants from other African nations. Some of you may have heard of this in the news back in May. At the time I struggled to put the violence into an American context. But what makes us any different? Unless we are of Native American descent, we are all immigrants of this country. I see now that I was getting hung up on the PHYSICAL violence. There is no denying that killings, especially motivated by differences, occur in America. But in our capitalistic society, it is the malice in wanting the “other” to fail that is most dangerous. We see intentional sabotage on the personal and professional levels all too often. How Christian is that?

All said, shame on any Christian who pulls the wool over their own eyes allowing him or herself to be blinded by ignorance. It’s a cowardly way out…

Is gun control a moral obligation?

Recently, I engaged in a conversation concerning gun control in this election and found myself sinking into an inescapable quicksand that finally forced me to concede complete ignorance on the topic and its place within Catholic teaching. In a speech from 2007, McCain stated his opposition to strict gun control using the constitution as means of defense, asserting, ""I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control,". By means of a refresher, let me provide the Second Amendment in it's original form: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Moreover, in a recent CNN article, nearly two-thirds of Americans agreed with Senator McCain and his support of private gun ownership; however, what I can't seem to reckon or understand is the connection between private gun-ownership, and the role of guns within a Christian community. On one hand, I fully understand the desire to own something that can protect and defend oneself, loved ones, family, etc., and the power felt through owning something that can efficiently and effectively reach an ultimate end: the termination of life. What I also understand is the moral groundwork underlying the necessity to fight evil and therefore the use of said object to reach that end. In fear of sounding too pacifistic, I will assert the importance of guns in appropriate situations; however, I am merely wondering why this object should be allowed within the private hands of free-willing human beings who, by their very nature, have proved to killing others without a present threat or evil.
As always, McCain supports and endorses issues that follow suit with his morals and principles, despite how appealing or effective they may be. An example of this can be seen in his stance on the issue of abortion. His moral conscious trumps the desire to appease those advocating pro-choice within America. However, turning to the issue of gun-control, I question the source from which he draws from in regards to this specific moral issue. Firearms in their material nature are not bad, therefore, is it just for any human being to own a firearm, correct? Logically speaking, yes. Is it then right to assume these said owners will use their firearms in a just and responsible manner? Hypothetically speaking, it should be easy to conclude. Nevertheless, the United States is plagued with school-shootings, irresponsible gunfire, and murder caused by a guns on an near daily basis. Therefore, I believe it is a moral obligation, religious and secular, to control distribution and use of guns in America. Unfortunately, research has turned up nothing in terms of the Catholic Church's stance and moral position on gun control; And, while I understand McCain must look through a secular, constitutional lens when developing his stance on no further need for gun control, I believe it is the moral duty of the Church to guide it's followers towards a life devoid of such deadly objects by endorsing heavier gun control laws in America.

Jesus is my homeboy; bishops take steps to engage young voters

In political campaigns most would agree the concept of “buying votes” or using bribery (unless you’re counting campaign promises) qualifies as corrupt and unethical practice. Many more would go so far as to attack a candidate’s character and moral fiber, to only further question the limits of their personal motives. Suppose the bribes are made by a third party, totally removed from and unbeknownst to the candidate. Now suppose that party is the American Catholic bishops.

Every four years the bishops offer documents to guide their Church members in their voting decisions. This year’s guide, titled Forming Consciences For Faithful Citizenship, maintains “that the church is against abortion, torture and deliberate attacks on noncombatants in war.” Paraphrasing the bishops, Michelle Boorstein for the Washington Post, delivers the message that “Catholic voters have to weigh a range of intrinsic evils and pick among candidates who never match up exactly with the Catholic Church on everything.”

Religion has been and remains a forefront issue in the election, causing great divide among Catholics. Boorstein will confirm that the conjecture I made earlier – that the American Catholic bishops would use bribery to sway voters – is in fact a reality. To encourage American Catholics to visit their website and read their guide, the bishops decided to giveaway an iPod! In yet a further attempt to reach young Catholic voters, a video version of Forming Consciences and corresponding quiz have been uploaded on YouTube.com. A Facebook page has even been developed!

I cannot help but wonder if, in catering to a teen culture, including its materialistic realm, the bishops are sending the wrong message? The mocking-style of writing taken by Boorstein leads me to believe she is also skeptical. While utilizing technology and trying to make politics less foreign and more conversational are good in theory, the bishops just might be trying too hard.

For whatever reason I cannot seem to shake the image of divorced parents trying to out-do the other, by making bigger and better offerings and/or gestures (bribes!) to win their children over. This is not to say either parent is bad, for their actions are based in good intentions, but any message in the way of guidance is all but lost on the sight of a shiny reward. Surely this is not true of all children, nor will the prize potential cloud all Catholics to the well-meaning advice of their bishops. Nonetheless it is absurd to think of the Catholic Church, particularly the larger institution, not even individual parishes, giving away an iPod!

If young Catholics really are this impressionable, John McCain should stock up on iPods now…

Welcome!

Welcome to our blog, and to what three collaborating professors hope will be a stimulating expansion of our campuses this fall.

There is no question that questions of faith, religion, and morality are deeply intertwined with questions of our collective identity and direction in the United States of America. Although some voices have limited the "moral issues" of American politics to questions of abortion and same-sex marriage, that area is rapidly expanding to include such areas as war, immigration, health care, affordable housing, care for creation, fighting racism, sexism, and poverty. The major parties are battling over the Catholic vote, the Evangelical vote, and likely other faith-based demographics as well.

This semester, in the midst of our study of religion or theology and politics, we will have a chance to explore together the intersection of faith and politics in this election. Some of us likely already know for whom we will vote. Others perhaps are unsure or are even contemplating not voting. Regardless, we hope that this blog will give us all an opportunity to come into contact with people and with points of view that we would not necessarily contact on our own campus.